sigh.<br><br>What's the deal with this "I brought the broomstick thing up twice" routine? I made two posts in reply to you. Here they are:<br><br>#1 (on the first page)<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I can't find any photos posted by Sean nor anything about them on the Boston Globe website, which they refer to?<p><hr></blockquote><p>#2 (on the second page)<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I guess thats kind of like how a broomstick up the @ss is a "big difference" from rape? We really need to get our vocabulary straight here. <p><hr></blockquote><p>That's it, the only replies (except this one) that I've made to you. The broomstick was mentioned once by me. Once. I'm losing my mind trying to figure out where the heck I mentioned this dang broomstick a second time. I even did a search for "broomstick" <br><br>edit: wait make that three. I have another reply denying the "two broomstick" comment also. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I haven't brought up the broomstick thing twice, just once, and my point was that "rape" and severe sexual abuse are very similar. Along the same line, saying "mission accomplished" in a speech to the active military in Iraq would cause one to believe the fighting is over.<p><hr></blockquote><p><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Trog on 05/14/04 00:25 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

Point taken. The original broomstick comment was from Nutty. Then Nutty came up with the first "Mission Accomplished" post stating that this meant the war was over. I responded to Nutty's post and the direct response to that post (now found out to be yours) mentioned the broomstick again. My brain interpreted this as a call back to the first post and erroneously assumed it was a continuation of the thread. Sorry about that. You were the second person to mention it not the same person mentioning it for a second time.<br><br>After reviewing the thread, except for the incorrect conclusion of Trog bringing up the broomstick twice, I stand behind the rest of my posts.<br><br>Dean Davis<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AfterTenSoftware on 05/14/04 00:39 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

I think I've figured it out, though. Nutty was the first to start talking about the broomstick sodomy and maybe he thought that was me. Whew! I was thinking I was already beginning to have senior moments! <br><br>nutty's reply (which was also to Dean)<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>so i just stuck a broomstick up your arse but in a NICE way that wouldnt be rape?<br><br><br>geez<p><hr></blockquote><p>

Excellent question. Since you don't want my personal answer I see what I can dig up regarding the administrations position on this.<br><br>As to the Patriot Act. Two things in real different directions. First, what freedoms were you enjoying before the act that you aren't enjoying now? Second, you really thought you were enjoying the full freedoms guaranteed by the Consitiution before the act?<br><br>Dean Davis

Yes, many of the quotes now coming to light are very disturbing. Full and open investigations need to be done to find out exactly what those pictures represent in context. It certainly doesn't look good for those in the pictures and those commanding them.<br><br>Dean Davis

So none of the individual statements are ad hominem but the whole statement is? That doesn't make sense.<br><br>The reason I didn't say "you are an idiot" is because I don't believe that. If you implied it that is unfortunate. If I think someone is an idiot and for some reason they need to be told that. I tell them they are an idiot. I don't need to hide behind word obfuscation or implication to make a point about my opinion on a persons intellect.<br>Not analyzing the information coming into the brain is not a sign of idiocy. It's usually a lack of training, will or laziness to do so.<br><br>Lastly to the "people in glass houses" argument on to why my post was singled out as ad hominem. So should I conclude then that you believe that ad hominem attacks are OK as long as the violator allows ad hominem responses? Boy, that would make for an intelligent discussion.<br>Of course I call people on ad hominem attacks. Everybody should. One shouldn't wait for a kettle-pot situation to do so. The problem is I wasn't really a pot. I just looked like one to you.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis

Well, I didn't reply at first because I thought it would just fade away, but it didn't and it hasn't. Then I thought I would just reply to the specifics, like numbers of broomstick comments made, and I would just leave the rest of the very subjective comments untouched.<br><br>But... the "you are an idiot" certainly WAS inferred (which is the word I think you meant to use) even if it wasn't intentionally implied. Mainly it was statements like, "It seems as if you'd like to have your politics in sound bytes, spoon fed to you so you wouldn't really have to think or analyize what is being said." Followed by, "This is not an attack unfounded in logic. So far his posts have truly led me to this conclusion. I do believe that he doesn't analyze."<br><br>Now, I don't want or need to explain how I think or analyze to other members of a web forum, my e-Penis is just fine , but... because it doesn't seem to go away I will say a couple things to defend myself in what feels like my virtual home here at MM. <br>The one-liner style post that somehow ticked you off into that explosion was a couple sentences restating earlier posts (both by nutty, by the way, which may have something to do with all of this..) by other members. They were stuck in at what (I thought) were poignant moments, and therefore I didn't feel they required links and extra analyzing to keep the discussion congruent. It was.... implied, you know, or so I thought. <br><br>Yet, the heart of what makes your response feel like an attack isn't that you "concluded" that I don't "analyze", everyone formulates impressions about other people hundreds of times throughout any given day, its that you felt the need to say that aloud. <br><br>You see, I would just as easily conclude that you do analyze, but that your conclusions appear twisted and wrong. The difference between thinking that, vs. writing it out for everyone to read, is what makes it appear a bit too personal.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.